Subject: [art] RSS and RFC?

From: Ggh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:29:05 +0300

Hello,

My name is Greg, and would like to ask if this list is a good place to discuss
RSS and its possible use?

Thank you,
Greg

Tell me, and I forget. Ask me, and I discover...

---

From: lef mutualauth <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 21:39:12 +0900

Hi, 

I think your opinion is correct.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/atompub/about/

-- 
HAYASHI, Tatsuya / from iPhone
<[email-masked]>
Lepidum Co. Ltd.

> 2019/10/07 21:29、Ggh <[email-masked]>のメール:
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 14:39:44 +0200

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:29:05PM +0300,
 Ggh <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 16 lines which said:

> if this list is a good place to discuss RSS and its possible use?

You may, but RSS is not an IETF format so people may be more
interested in discussions about Atom? (Hard to say more, since you did
not provide details.)

---

From: Ggh <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 12:12:02 +0300

Hi,

Well...,

I think it is a bit wicked that what is used is RSS2.0 (more or less)  
as far as I can tell.

Would it not be a better route to take to standardise RSS2(and similar) than
atom(which catches less attraction)?

My opinion,
Thank's,
Greg

> Quoting Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>:ta
> ?
> interested in discussions about Atom? (Hard)  to say more, since you did
> not provide details.)
>
> __________________________) _____________________
> art mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 11:55:42 +0200

On 08.10.2019 11:12, Ggh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well...,
>
> I think it is a bit wicked that what is used is RSS2.0 (more or less) as
> far as I can tell.
>

Uh.

There was a reason why the WG defined a new format instead of fixing the
existing ones. I was going to point you the the WG's mail archive, as
linked from <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/atompub/charter/>, but it
seems to be gone.

Does anybody know whether there's a copy of
<https://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Edward Vielmetti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 04:46:34 -0700

Perhaps an informational, non-normative RFC describing in some loving
detail the RSS in actual use in the wild would be a service to the
community. I'm thinking something similar in scope and style to RFC 1436
(Gopher protocol).

-- 
Edward Vielmetti +1 734 330 2465
[email-masked]

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:48:41 -0700

Hello,
At 04:46 AM 08-10-2019, Edward Vielmetti wrote:
>Perhaps an informational, non-normative RFC describing in some 
>loving detail the RSS in actual use in the wild would be a service 
>to the community. I'm thinking something similar in scope and style 
>to RFC 1436 (Gopher protocol).

The IPR for the RSS specification is owned by an organization which 
is unrelated to the IETF.  The persons volunteering to write the 
Internet-Draft may have to seek the relevant approval.

For what it is worth, there may be some confusion given that the term 
"RSS" is also used to refer to feeds formatted according to RFC 4287.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Edward Vielmetti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 05:54:42 -0700

Just to clarify, by IPR you mean Intellectual Property Rights? If so,
please cite a specific reference.

---

From: Edward Vielmetti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 06:09:40 -0700

I do not see the string "RSS" anywhere in RFC 4287, so I don't consider
that RFC an impediment to any future work.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 15:15:23 +0200

On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:09:40AM -0700,
 Edward Vielmetti <[email-masked]> wrote 

> that RFC an impediment to any future work.

S. Moonesamy's point was that many people call "RSS" any syndication
format (including Atom).

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2019 06:00:28 -0700

Hi Edward,
At 05:54 AM 08-10-2019, Edward Vielmetti wrote:
>Just to clarify, by IPR you mean Intellectual Property Rights? If 
>so, please cite a specific reference.

Yes.  Please see http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Robert Sparks <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:59:03 -0500

Hi Julian -

Does <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/atompub/> contain what 
you're looking for?

RjS

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2019 17:25:36 +0200

On 08.10.2019 16:59, Robert Sparks wrote:
> ...

Those do not seem to go back to the time when the WG as actually working
on the format and protocol specs (RFC 5023 was published in 2007).

Best regards, Julian

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2019 22:53:23 -0400

> Internet-Draft may have to seek the relevant approval.

As a general rule, you don't need permission of the IPR owners to *write
about* something, you need it to *implement* it.

Of course, to be maximally useful, there should be references to
documentation of any IPR claims that we can track down.

Dale